Blown spicer yokes S2B front swivels.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Hi people

Just thought I would post some pics from the S2C forum in the UK on a broken swivel joint in a S2B.

http://cmoes.dnsalias.com/fc110/DSCN5004.JPG

Yes that is snow - the vehicle lives in Norway.

http://cmoes.dnsalias.com/fc110/DSCN5011.JPG
Image original publication site: www.s2cforum.com - ENV front left drive shafts (http://www.s2cforum.com/forum/index.php/topic,17646.0.html)

My guess is that with the stronger ENV diff the yokes became the weakest link in the chain and the reason for the size of the swivels on the 101.

Diana

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Here is the repair using a SIII 109 halfshaft:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

He cut, center drilled, inserted a 8mm bolt, balanced and welded the pieces together.

[101RRS]

My guess is that with the stronger ENV diff the yokes became the weakest link in the chain and the reason for the size of the swivels on the 101.

Diana

The 101 has a sals in the front and CVs rather than yoke unis. So not sure your reasoning holds up.

Garry

[dandlandyman]

What a grim sight!

Before I fitted the FWHs to my 2b, trying to turn tightly in low range resulted in wind-up severe enough to stall it. Thankfully, the UJs were still fine when I pulled it apart.

Dan.
69 2a 88" pet4, 74 3 109" pet4, 68 2b FC pet6.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The 101 has a sals in the front and CVs rather than yoke unis. So not sure your reasoning holds up.

Garry
Garry the original 101" prototypes had ENV axle assemblies probably ex-S2B and the prototypes also had S2B engines and transmissions. By that time they would have been experiencing the problems with the spicer joints and instead of merely using the Range Rover swivels and CVs they beefed up the swivels and CV's for the production 101's. After all I understand the payload specified for the S2B (1525Kg) and max drawbar pull (1975Kg) are not all that different to that of the 101".

Also, had the forward control continued into series 3, I reason that they would have migrated from ENV to Salisbury front and rear the same as the 1 Ton normal controls did. The reason for the change is that the Salis is closer to a hypoid diff than the ENV which is a spiral bevel.

Well that is what my reasoning is, you may not agree.

Cheers
Diana

BTW - what are the chassis number sequence of a 101"?

[101RRS]

I do not know much about the prototype 101s - I am sure the first ones would have been based on the series 2 fc - however the gestation of the 101 was nearly 10 years so I am sure the prototypes would have had plenty of variations. I am surprised that the 101 had leaf springs in some respects and not the RR suspension - however at the time coils were not considered to be good load carriers (remember the new HQ came in for critisism at the time fore its rear coils). It would have been nice to gave at least front coils - the parabolics on a 101 are not nearly as good as thet are cracked up to be - the rears in particular have poor articulation and the ride is not great.

The 101 has a payload of 1 tonne and and tow capacity of 1.5tonne. Now before people say that is not much for such a vehicle - afterall a disco is something like 3.5 tonne - it should be remembered that the 101s rating is for cross country/offroad and at speed - never being in civilian production it never got an onroad rating - by comparison a disco offroad is 750kg I believe so on that basis the 101 should have about twice the capacity as a D1/D2 on road.

Garry

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Garry

I think you are correct about development over time, but isn't that what doing prototype builds is all about. I do know that the 101 prototype that came out for the Australian Army testing had ENV axle assemblies and a Ford Falcon motor.

Regarding payload the S2B cross country payload is specified at 1270Kg so in truth a 1 1/4 ton by mil spec. There is only one drawbar pull spec on the S2B where the payload has both specs.

Leaf Springs Vs Coils. Leaf springs are actually better for loads than coils because the load is carried at multiple points, including the shock absorber mounts, whereas coils are a concentrated load adjacent to the shock mount. It is why 130s have a reputation of cracking the chassis. If you look at the myriad of little white utes around the place most of them have rear leaf suspensions. Leaf springs are also a more stable platform for towing. However I will acknowledge that front coils would be an advantage, particularly for passenger comfort.

Diana

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Just thought I would post a pic of the S2B with the broken halfshaft - don't you just love their version of a tropical roof.

http://www.cmoes.com/fc110/DSCN4941.JPG

Diana

[JDNSW]

............
Also, had the forward control continued into series 3, I reason that they would have migrated from ENV to Salisbury front and rear the same as the 1 Ton normal controls did. The reason for the change is that the Salis is closer to a hypoid diff than the ENV which is a spiral bevel.

Well that is what my reasoning is, you may not agree.

Cheers
Diana

........

I think there is too much made of the supposed strength of a hypoid versus a spiral bevel diff. Certainly a hypoid C & P is is stronger, everything else being equal, because of the tooth load is shared over a larger area. But when did you last see a diff fail because of lack of tooth area? Firstly, in my experience, all the diff failures I have seen have been something else broke or flexed, and C&P damage was either because a bit of metal went through the mesh, or the other failure (or overloading) allowed them to move out of mesh. Hypoid design has the drawback that it has much greater sliding action between the teeth, putting greater demands on the lubrication, so that they are more likely to fail because of lubrication failure (e.g. water contamination).

The reason that the motor industry has long ago largely gone to hypoid diffs has nothing to do with the strength - it is because they allow the prop shaft to be lower, which is an advantage in most on-road vehicles. But not, I might add, on the front prop shaft of a 101 where it imposes greater angles in the U-joints, in exchange for a bit more room for the engine.

My guess is that the reason for going from ENV to Salisbury during development is the same reason the One Ton did - either the whole setup is a lot stronger (not because it is hypoid, but because it is not bolted together and is simply better designed), or possibly the supply tender came in lower.

And it can't be "closer to a hypoid" - if the pinion and crown wheel axes are not in the same plane, it IS hypoid!

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

... And it can't be "closer to a hypoid" - if the pinion and crown wheel axes are not in the same plane, it IS hypoid!

John
John

I didn't know that about the definition of hypoid diffs.

The change over from the ENV to Sals. may have been as you say because of tender issues. The ENV was an old design used in Morris Commercials in the post War period and possibly before, LAND Rover seems to have been about the last to be using it.

Diana

[JDNSW]

John

I didn't know that about the definition of hypoid diffs.

The change over from the ENV to Sals. may have been as you say because of tender issues. The ENV was an old design used in Morris Commercials in the post War period and possibly before, LAND Rover seems to have been about the last to be using it.

Diana

It is quite possible that the changeover was simply because ENV no longer was prepared to make them in small numbers for a single user. Or in fact, the supplier may have gone bust - a popular exercise in the UK motor industry round that time.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It is quite possible that the changeover was simply because ENV no longer was prepared to make them in small numbers for a single user. Or in fact, the supplier may have gone bust - a popular exercise in the UK motor industry round that time.

John
John

I rather think it would be mostly the former - the E in E.N.V. refers to Eaton the same people who still make truck diffs and gearboxes however the N may relate to Nuffield - the Morris manufacturer and the nationalising of the British motor industry at the time may have resulted in abandoning the joint venture.

I would love to know.

Diana

[101 Ron]

Just a few points
My 101 is legal and stamped by Landrover to have a payload of 1.5 tonne giving a gross vehicle mass from memory 3.7 tonne.
The rated landrover maximum towed load is two tonnes as marked on the vehicle by Landrover.
Legal on Aussie roads as used by the Aussie army.
The ambulance version is about one tonne heavier than standard and is fairly top heavy in which the standard parabolics handle the load well.
One must remember the designed use of the 101 which is a GUN TRACTOR.
In the early 1970s army convoys didnt need to go any faster than 40 mph when towing a gun and troops and ammo in the back.
The gearing on the 101 reflects this cruising speed and the pulling power required.
The Aust Army mark 3,4 and 5 of the time does its thing at 40 mph doing a similar job.( gun tractor )
The 101 is designed to be air transportable inside air aircraft and out side.
one of the design requirements is to be dropped by aircraft.......a good reason to have stiff spring rates.
A great factor in using the Salisbury diff on the 101 was light weight so the vehicle could meet the Two tonne weight specs and this could only be used with constant 4WD system to spread the torque.
ENV diffs are too heavy.
Note the use of large throttle settings in 1st and 2nd gear low range on a 101 is not recommended by Landrover.
Garry you will find when you have done a few miles behind the wheel of a 101 the parabolics shine on a corragated road if the shocks are OK.
Yes the 101 would have been better with coils like a Unimog.
Many years a go the Aussie Army had a test track with a one foot square by one foot deep standard pot hole.
When vehicles like the Pinzquazer was tried over it , they rode fantistic and the suspension fell out of them after 20000 miles.
Landrover learnt many years ago at that time if the the driver could feel the bumps , the driver would slow down to a reasonable level.
Right or wrong the 101 has a stiff suspension.
I have a series Three front drive axle at home just like the above photos and it is interesting to compare the 101 drive axles with a standard Landrover one early or late model and for diameter/ size the 101 drive axle is in a completely larger size class and are not the weakest link in a 101 drive train.
I have done much checking of this lately for the proposed fitting of a front locker to my 101.
The Salisbury was on the 101 was done to save weight.
One must remember the designed roll of a vehicle.
The 101 was never for a civie market and was designed for and by the miltary from the ground up and thats why it was so different to any other Landrover
Ron

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I must go an see the build of the Land Rover Llama at the Dunsfold collection one day. It should answer some of these questions.

http://www.s2fc.nl/Portals/0/images/LRvreemd/Llama.jpg
(Image courtesy Series 2 Club UK)

After all it was the planned replacement for the S2B and may well have used some of the 101" bits making both vehicles no longer orphans. The artists impressions I have show the Llama in olive drab being used as a gun tractor. In the photos of the last of the prototypes, it is using 5 stud wheels but with what resemble early Maxidrive drive flanges.

Out of Interest the S2B is not labeled with any weights, however from the 1967 110 Brochure the specs are:

Payloads:
Roadwork 2 persons + 1525Kg
Cross-country 2 persons + 1270 Kg

Weights:
Unladen + 5 Gal. fuel 1970,8 Kg

Maximum allowable gross weight
Roadwork 3742 Kg
Cross-country 3488 Kg

Maximum drawbar pull: 1975 Kg

[101RRS]

Hi Ron - Correct as always - I got my load numbers from a document I was reading - in view of your post I went and checked my ID plate - yep towing is 2 Tonne, max Gross wt is 3652kg, front axle 1848kg, rear 1910kg. With an unloaded weight this does make the 101 a 1.5 tonner.

Interestingly the 101 handbook does list the 101 as a 1 tonner with a gross rate of 3143kg and lower front and rear load limits. I cannot find the tow limit but I do recall it somewhere being listed as 1.5tonne.

So it would seem the Australian 101s GS models have a larger capacity than the Brit equivalents.

As far as the suspension goes - we tend to drive our 101s unloaded at at times forget they are a truck - so the suspension probably works best with about a tonne of gear inside.

Dianna - the Llama was a not a replacement for the series 2B FC as it was designed much later - but a vehicle to be use as a replacement for the 101 but was designed around the chassis, suspension etc of a 110 landie.

There are a number of sources of information on the Llama but this is as good as any Land Rover Llama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Llama)

Cheers

Garry

[JDNSW]

....

As far as the suspension goes - we tend to drive our 101s unloaded at at times forget they are a truck - so the suspension probably works best with about a tonne of gear inside.
........

Garry

Not just the 101 - this morning I cut a load of wood, and was reminded again how much better the ride of the 2a is with a tonne of firewood in the back! Most Landrovers, certainly the Series and 90/110/Defender are designed as utility vehicles with good load carrying capability, and except for a few cases such as the County with load leveller, this means that they will have a harsh ride when unloaded.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

... Diana - the Llama was a not a replacement for the series 2B FC as it was designed much later - but a vehicle to be use as a replacement for the 101 but was designed around the chassis, suspension etc of a 110 landie.

There are a number of sources of information on the Llama but this is as good as any Land Rover Llama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Llama)

Cheers

Garry
I think we are being a bit pedantic here (wot me) if you read your own quoted source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Llama) it makes the statement "the Llama was intended to be sold on both the military and civilian markets."

I don't know where the "much later" comes from, the 101 was only produced between 1975 and 1978 Land Rover 101 Forward Control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_101_Forward_Control) which in fact means that 101 and S2B production were in parallel production for all but 2 years. "In South Africa, SIIBs were made until 1976" Wouter's page : Series II Forward Control FAQ (http://www.retro.co.za/lr/FC/109FCFAQ.html) and it is likely that the SA military were in need or replacement of their S2B at the same time as the MoD were replacing the 101".

The 101 was never produced as a civilian vehicle and hence the Llama with plans for dual military and civilian production and that it was heavily based on the Land Rover 110, just like the S2B 110 was heavily based on the Land Rover 109, makes the Llama a replacement for both 101 and S2B.

Cheers
Diana

[101RRS]

Diana,

There is nothing wrong with a bit of pedanticism amongst formites:p. It is not as if it is rare on AULRO.:D

Garry

[Lotz-A-Landies]

:D :D True

Too True! :D:D:D

[101 Ron]

Garrycol check out the bottom of the plate you found on the passengers side of the engine fan tunnel.........two tonnes towing.
The bad news is the fuel burn pulling that weight.
The 101 pulls my 2.5 tonne boat well from a straight towing point of view, but the brakes and short wheel base and heavy slow steering make it a hand full.
The 1.5 tonne camper van with over ride brakes is OK behind the 101 on and off road even going up or down the steepest of slopes.........if the tyres can find bite, the 101 is happy with it.
My Defender TDI 300 130 is not happy with the boat from a engine and transmission point of view, but the handling,suspesion and long wheel base make it feel it could tow more if the torque was there.
The Defender tows the camper van well in all conditions ,but the 101 would have the edge off road.
Just been doing the oils inthe 101 today.
Engine oil with a Z9 filter is 7 litres.
The transfercase is about 3 litres.
The overdrive seems bottom less.........three litres.........I think the filler plug is just than and the excess goes into the transfer case.
Gear box about three litres of castrol VMX 80 as I found it improves the gear shift, and the rest is 50 engine oil.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

...
The overdrive seems bottom less.........three litres.........I think the filler plug is just than and the excess goes into the transfer case.
Gear box about three litres of castrol VMX 80 as I found it improves the gear shift, and the rest is 50 engine oil.
Ron

Hilton Pollard and Max Heinzel used to modify the Fairey Overdrives by drilling and tapping through the transfer case and inserting a fitting into the overdrive case (not sure if he used the bung for the filler). He then had a pipe going from the fitting in the T/f to the fitting in the O/D. Inside the T/F was a little scoop like funnel that would catch oil as it was flung around inside the case and by gravity would flow into the O/D.

The idea was that the O/D was always kept topped up and the excess drained out through the concentric drive to the mainshaft. This kept everything lubricated and the the overdrive ran cooler because of the regular exchange of oil with the transfer case oil.

What I'm not sure about is whether they removed any seals between the two boxes. Perhaps Master Chief can enlighten us?

Diana

P.S. Just reading more SIIB info and Wouter's pages Wouter's page : Series II Forward Control FAQ (http://www.retro.co.za/lr/FC/109FCFAQ.html) (again), it seems that the suffix E SIIB were metric and in South Africa had Salisbury front and rear. Didn't know that!

[101 Ron]

The overdrive in a LT95 and a series Landy are different.
I am not certain ,but the Fairey in the LT95 already has a scoop either side of the main gear that channels oil into the unit.
I guess it flows back out though the bearings for the main gear.
That why the Range rover overdrives seem to last a bit longer and handle more power.
The oil between the two units appears to be shared and better lubrication and cooling the result.
The series overdrive by Fairey and Toro have seperate lubrication standard and therefore more problems.
The Range rover overdrive has different internal parts too and suffers from wear on a set of splines on the main shalt through the unit.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Oh Well - it was a try.

I don't know about yours but the Fairey O/D on my LT95 lasted less than the Fairey O/D on the 253 on a series box.

The Rocky mountain does have a collector system with an archemedes screw arrangement, but in regarding either of the Fairey I can't remember seeing one. Will look at the dead LT95 one tomorrow.

Diana

[101 Ron]

Here is a photo of a Rangerover overdrive.
Note the extensions on the casting near the drive gear.
The extensions channel the oil into the unit via a small hole.
Note the shift rail is back to front compared to the series item.
Garrycol note the extra harden ring and shims which must come with the unit so it can be fitted.

Fairey_overdrive.jpg - Image - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting (http://s131.photobucket.com/albums/p299/101Ron/?action=view&current=Fairey_overdrive.jpg)

[Bigbjorn]

The reason that the motor industry has long ago largely gone to hypoid diffs has nothing to do with the strength - it is because they allow the prop shaft to be lower,

Hypoid diffs allowed the body to be lowered over the chassis instead of being perched on top. The lowered drive line thus achieved allowed for more room inside by lowering the gearbox hump and driveshaft tunnel.

And it can't be "closer to a hypoid" - if the pinion and crown wheel axes are not in the same plane, it IS hypoid!

Hypoid is where the pinion meshes with the crown wheel below the crown wheel centre, and it is called amboid when the pinion meshes above the crown wheel centre. Typical heavy truck tandem drive diff sets use one of each.

John

Brian

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Here is a photo of a Rangerover overdrive.
Note the extensions on the casting near the drive gear.
The extensions channel the oil into the unit via a small hole. ....

Ron

Thanks for that, the pic is very interesting and the channels you mention are definately not part of either of the earlier units. Obviously a modification to solve part of the problem we were discussing.

Onto 101 swivels and CVs.

A friend posed an interesting possibility. The 6 stud hubs and rims of the 101 are an orphan in Land Rover land and possibly designed to match the 6 stud pattern of the howitzer they were designed to tow. Others have suggested that you can fit Unimog rims to 101s.

Is it possible that the front hubs, swivels and CVs on a 101 are actually the same parts as on the Unimog? It would be a way of reducing the cost of tooling for a low volume production.

Diana

[101 Ron]

Unimog rims are almost a straight swap depending on the model of Mog.
Mogs use a portal axle set up and is completely different and is a much better set up for off road work.
I dont know about the gun wheels being interchangeable with the 101.
The Gun is the one now in use with the Aussie army and is towed over long distances with the gun barrel pointing to the towing vehicle , is unusual.
I might add everything I have driven with portal axles suffer from a drag of the extra hub reduction gear train and diffs spinning hard when driven at speed on good roads and dont tend to coast down hills like a normal vehicle.
The Mog and 101 have nothing in common and I can not wait for the Mogs to go through Army auctiions, they are a good but complex piece of kit.

[101 Ron]

Just checked the L118 light Gun has six studs in all the photos I have found, I also have a drawing of the gun with five studs.

[brookvale]

Hi Diana - (Neil aka FAB here)
Hadn't realised there was an FC section lurking inside AULRO...

I'm still on original swivel/UJs with an LT95 perm 4WD and they've done 3,000 miles all up so far - with some pretty hard yakka up in the local sand dunes....

Having seen what a worn out UJ bearing can do to a UJ yoke (on my front propshaft) over a hundred miles it wouldn't surprise me if the ultimate cause of the Danish problem was worn UJ bearings (unless he tells us he had new ones in there!)

But - your other posts re Maxidrive shafts and the conversion to Stage I CVs sounds tempting long term... especially as my left side swivel pins/bearing are now showing signs of slackness.

BTW: I have one original IIA FC rim now being repaired - Arrow Wheels in Auckland - the man was keen to have a go at weld-filling the stud hole surrounds and grinding them to suit.
Fingers Xd!
If it works out I'll give him a second one - it has radial cracks appearing from the stud holes now :(

Trouble was I saw he had some 16" Minilite lookalikes on his shelf - He saw me ogling them "I can make you a custom set of those for your FC - any width/offset etc".
Chance would be a fine thing!

Our recent forays onto the beach have re-inforced the need for inner mudguards/shields alongside the engine bay. The whole of the top of the engine gets dumped with tons of sand... Lucky I kept a set of panels off an old SIII - the alloy will come in handy now.

and while I'm prattling on :
I hadn't totally realised what the original gearchange system was like on the IIA - (scary!). I still have the transfer change lever in place but not the 4WD or gearchange levers.
I have been looking to improve the overdrive shifter and saw I might be able to use the old gearchange action which is still inside the box under the floor. All I needed was what looked like (in the book) a bog-standard Series gearlever. And Lo! - I had kept the gearlever from the wrecked SIII.... This weekend should see me testing out the options.

Got way off the original post - but what the heck.
cheers. Neil

[Lotz-A-Landies]

After doing the rear Maxi-Drive halfshafts quite a while ago and having the front half-shafts and the SIII-V8 CV front end sitting in the shed for what seems like ages (years) we decided to do the front end conversion today.

Well it hasn't been plain sailing. Unlike the original front halfshafts where the ENV spline is the same O.D as the bearing and seal in the back of the chrome swivel ball, the seal on the SIII-V8 is about the same O.D as the original Rover spline. This is a problem for re-assembly as the ENV spline is much larger.

It is not an insoluble problem, it just requires a little modification to one part (x 2) and a different re assembly technique.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/1615.jpg

The SIII-V8 CVs were removed as usual and the inner shafts (AEU1829 & AEU1830) disassembled from the CV (AEU1828) using a plastic hammer to knock the CV off the shaft.

The seal retainer in the back of the chrome swivel ball (FRC2552) was removed and the seal removed from within.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/1616.jpg

The retainer was then placed in a lathe and the bore enlarged so the shoulder on the new Maxi-drive half-shaft CV end can pass through the retainer. A new 571718 seal can then be inserted and the retainer replaced in the back of the swivel ball.

The change in the rest of the technique requires that the new inner shafts be carefully passed CV end first through the diff-end of the swivel ball (with its seal in place) before being engaged into the CV joints.

The shafts and CV's will have to remain in position while the balls are replaced onto the ENV housing and the swivels re-assembled. This is not dissimilar to the technique for the inner front half-shafts on the original 80" Land Rover.

Remember, you no longer need the seal in the end of the ENV axle housing so that can be removed and discarded.

Diana

[isuzurover]

Here is the repair using a SIII 109 halfshaft:

http://www.cmoes.com/fc110/sveistaksling.jpg

He cut, center drilled, inserted a 8mm bolt, balanced and welded the pieces together.

That is a worry if the yokes are only the same size as a Series 3. From personal experience, S3 yokes are weaker than stage 1, county (and of course 101) CVs.


But when did you last see a diff fail because of lack of tooth area? Firstly, in my experience, all the diff failures I have seen have been something else broke or flexed, and C&P damage was either because a bit of metal went through the mesh, or the other failure (or overloading) allowed them to move out of mesh. Hypoid design has the drawback that it has much greater sliding action between the teeth, putting greater demands on the lubrication, so that they are more likely to fail because of lubrication failure (e.g. water contamination).

The reason that the motor industry has long ago largely gone to hypoid diffs has nothing to do with the strength - it is because they allow the prop shaft to be lower, which is an advantage in most on-road vehicles...

JD - I have seen quite a few rover CW&Ps fail without damaging the centre. Who is to say if they failed due to lack of tooth contact or because the carrier flexed - but they certainly failed without the help of foreign matter. What about those which fail in diffs with pegged crownwheels???

A hypoid diff is less efficient. Surely trucks and buses (who don't have floor pan constraints) would use spiral bevel diffs if they were equivalent in strength???

In the case of car diffs we are talking a few " difference. The rover cars managed OK...

[Lotz-A-Landies]

That is a worry if the yokes are only the same size as a Series 3. From personal experience, S3 yokes are weaker than stage 1, county (and of course 101) CVs.

<snip>That's correct. My guestimate is the design of the front halfshaft and yoke are hangovers from the original Rover design in the 1954 models. They did try to strengthen the system in the F/C by introducing a fine spline that carried onto the SIII 109's and Salisbury. However the SIIB was in production well before the 101 and even the Range Rover so a CV front end was not considered.

It has become an issue for SIIB owners today because NOS front halfshafts are no longer available and hence why Mal Story and I developed the modified the Stage 1 swivel as a direct replacement for the SIIB swivel without any other changes in geometry etc.

[isuzurover]

It has become an issue for SIIB owners today because NOS front halfshafts are no longer available and hence why Mal Story and I developed the modified the Stage 1 swivel as a direct replacement for the SIIB swivel without any other changes in geometry etc.

Has anyone broken a stage 1 CV in a IIB?

These are an option which may be better:
Extreme duty axles (http://www.seriestrek.com/axles.html?)
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/05/1319.jpg

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Has anyone broken a stage 1 CV in a IIB?

These are an option which may be better:
No - AFAIK I'm the first one in the World to fit them.

Whom made the extreme duty axles and did they make them with ENV splines?

Although, possibly not better when they are being driven by an LT230 constant 4X4 transmission!

[isuzurover]

No - AFAIK I'm the first one in the World to fit them.

Whom made the extreme duty axles and did they make them with ENV splines?

Although, possibly not better when they are being driven by an LT230 constant 4X4 transmission!

Mercedesrover/seriestrek make them or have them made. They are machined from pre-hardened 1541H blanks, so I doubt it would be much extra effort to put ENV splines instead of rover splines. You could probably also buy some blanks with yokes and get McNamara or Barry at HTE to cut splines in them.

A CV will be a bit smoother in a constant 4x4 application, but UJs aren't too bad. Some models of jeep came as a constant 4x4 with front UJs. With PAS you have some slight steering feedback on corners but that is it.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Mercedesrover/seriestrek make them or have them made. They are machined from pre-hardened 1541H blanks, so I doubt it would be much extra effort to put ENV splines instead of rover splines. You could probably also buy some blanks with yokes and get McNamara or Barry at HTE to cut splines in them.
<snip>Thanks I'll keep that in mind.

Barry Ward already has a brooch for the ENV splines as I needed to send Mal an ENV side gear for them to make the brooch. Now that they have it they can cut the spline anytime they need, provided there is enough metal on the 1541 blank before they start.

[Stormy]

I find this discussion rather interesting, as I installed a 4.4 and Rangie transmission in a series 2b in 1983. This was used as a farm hack for years and regulary carried 4 or 5 cattle in a large tandem trailer, as well as off road work. It has never broken a front halfshaft yoke, so I would suspect that factors other than strength are involved. If you look at the geometry of the swivel pin housing, one very important requirement is that the swivel pin axis should intersect the drive axis at the centre of the universal "cross" If there is any departure from this then the velocity will vary which will produce what could be called chatter in the drive. The best way to observe this occuring is to watch a drive shaft on PTO driven trailed agricultural machinery such as balers while the tractor is turning sharply. The effect is very audible and can smash a yoke very quickly. Even with a uni at each end of the shaft the effect will occur if the pivot point is not EXACTLY in the centre of the drive shaft( midway between unis). If you have the opportunity have a look at the complex coupling when a 101 is used with a driven trailer. The design is to maintain correct geometry as much as possible. If the geometry of our swivel pin setup is upset by either a worn swivel bearing or turning the steering too far then we run the risk of failure. The railco bush is best replaced by a tapered roller bearing, making sure the correct preload is applied. It is also very important to make sure the lock stops are doing exactly that. If the lock stop gets bent or worn then the steering can turn the outer halfshaft too far and binding will occur. If the simple UJ is replaced with a CVJ then some extra lock could be used without the risk of failure. Well that's about it does any one have any further ides? cheers from Storm

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Thanks Stormy

I have never broken a front halfshaft, but have 2 X SIIB without the front RHS halfshaft. My personal opinion is that the breakages actually occurred on bitumen roads with the vehicle in 4WD, a consequence of the over complex and often malfunctioning 4WD selector mechanism. With your LT95 the centre diff would not allow the stresses of axle wind up to occur in the front drive train. The only down side is the steering wheel kick caused by the variable velocity of the uni joint swivel. (The stage 1 CVs would solve this aspect of your conversion.)

Regarding your suggestion of taper roller bearings replacing the Railco bushes. I know that Range Rover have tapered roller bearings, but they also have power assisted steering to absorb the shock loads. The very earliest 80" land Rovers also had tapered roller bearings at the top and after various modifications Land Rover settled on the Railco bush. Personally I'm equivocal on this change, a "blue slip authorised" mechanic mate is recommending modifying the system to use tapered roller bearings, but others suggest that without PAS the steering kick from the 9.00 tyres will be excessive, probably requiring upgrading of the steering damper system.

The issue of the swivel pin axis: I have not drawn the axis out technically, however given the negative offset of the SIIb rims (part number 569203) and the 9.00 tyres the centre of the tyre footprint would come very close to intersecting the swivel pin axis. I also believe that the Australian 5 1/2" rims (part number 272309) with 7.50 tyres do not meet this geometry and is the reason the the UK build vehicles changed to the part number 569690 5 1/2" rims.

Would be very interested in seeing any images the engine bay of your SIIB 4.4V8 installation!

Diana

[Stormy]

G'day Diana, all OK on the cause of the problem, as for any sort of steering kick the only way I've ever had any adverse reaction was to leave the damper out. I would say that if the damper is in good condition and kockstops OK then no problem should be experienced with the use of rollers top & bottom of the swivel pin housing. I've had bearings for a decade or more and the've been good. I'd love to find a power steering box that would fit without drama, I looked at an early Ford ram type system but it didn't have quite enough stroke. Someone suggested there is a Mazda box that would do. On the swivel pin axis I was really on about how it interacted with the drive axis at the UJ, but the point you raise is very important, because when the axis and ground contact line are away from the centre of the contact patch then it may well introduce steering reaction, especially under braking. The offsets in Australian rims that were made by ROH for series 3s (5 1/2") were in line with the British changes. The OZ rims had the prefix AYG (Leyland part No. I think) and a raised ridge about 25mm wide between the mounting stud holes. There was a big thing about not mixing them with series 2A rims on a vehicle in the army, when the S3 arrived. These rims were called by some in the trade "Spanish" rims. With the 4400 conversion, it was not all straight forward. the 4.4 was wider across the heads than the 3.5 because of the increased deck height. This meant therewas a conflict between the top chassis rail on LHS and the head on that side. the solution was to either move the rail or the engine. The rail won because moving the power plant may have upset the driveline geometry. There was no big deal with engineering back then, it may be different now. Nothing broke over nearly 30 years so the engineering must have been adequate. The left exhaust manifold needs to be a rear outlet that hugs the block to clear the main chassis rail too. There is probably a lot I've forgotten now, but I think if I was to do another I would use a 4BD1T. They just wern't available on the open market then. The one thing the V8 has in its favour is that it is nice and quiet, even though it's sitting right beside you! I do have some photos I'll see if they can be found. Cheers from Storm.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Thanks Storm

Do I recognise that vehicle in your avatar? It's the same colour as one that Ken West had?

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I have in my shed a 4.6EFI V8 from a Disco 1 and both an R380/LT230 combination plus a ZF 4HP22 also from a Disco. My mechanic mate wants me to use the 4.6/ZF combination, my friend with a perentie wants me to use a 4BD1/LT95 combo.

I would seriously consider the 4bd1-T option but I don't have one ATM.

Have you seen the PAS conversions that Anthony Johnson has done to some 101's? He used a "Toyota LC PAS box on an additional bracket fixed in front of the front crossmember to the RHS chassis rail. He then uses a modified steering bevel box (to reverse the output direction) from the bottom of the steering column.

I am looking at using a P38a PAS box in the same manner. But haven't fully worked out the geometry yet. (the P38a box mounts to the outside of the P38a chassis the same as the Toyota LC box.

Diana

[isuzurover]

Thanks Storm

Do I recognise that vehicle in your avatar? It's the same colour as one that Ken West had?

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I have in my shed a 4.6EFI V8 from a Disco 1 and both an R380/LT230 combination plus a ZF 4HP22 also from a Disco. My mechanic mate wants me to use the 4.6/ZF combination, my friend with a perentie wants me to use a 4BD1/LT95 combo.

I would seriously consider the 4bd1-T option but I don't have one ATM.

Have you seen the PAS conversions that Anthony Johnson has done to some 101's? He used a "Toyota LC PAS box on an additional bracket fixed in front of the front crossmember to the RHS chassis rail. He then uses a modified steering bevel box (to reverse the output direction) from the bottom of the steering column.

I am looking at using a P38a PAS box in the same manner. But haven't fully worked out the geometry yet. (the P38a box mounts to the outside of the P38a chassis the same as the Toyota LC box.

Diana

I am sure you would eventually regret having a petrol engine in what is essentially a light-med size truck.

There are quite a few people using R380s behind 4BD1s.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I am sure you would eventually regret having a petrol engine in what is essentially a light-med size truck.

There are quite a few people using R380s behind 4BD1s.Ben

But don't you just love the sound of a V8! ;)

If I already had a 4BD1 turbo or not, the decision would be a lot easier. :(

[Stormy]

Thanks Storm

Do I recognise that vehicle in your avatar? It's the same colour as one that Ken West had?

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I have in my shed a 4.6EFI V8 from a Disco 1 and both an R380/LT230 combination plus a ZF 4HP22 also from a Disco. My mechanic mate wants me to use the 4.6/ZF combination, my friend with a perentie wants me to use a 4BD1/LT95 combo.

I would seriously consider the 4bd1-T option but I don't have one ATM.

Have you seen the PAS conversions that Anthony Johnson has done to some 101's? He used a "Toyota LC PAS box on an additional bracket fixed in front of the front crossmember to the RHS chassis rail. He then uses a modified steering bevel box (to reverse the output direction) from the bottom of the steering column.

I am looking at using a P38a PAS box in the same manner. But haven't fully worked out the geometry yet. (the P38a box mounts to the outside of the P38a chassis the same as the Toyota LC box.

Diana
Thanks Diana for the PAS info,the 2B isn't the one you suspect, the one I have has never been out of the area as far as its residence goes. I'm lucky in that I know its complete history from new and know a lot of the people who drove it before I bought it in 1982. The pic in the avitar was actually taken in 1982 just after restoration. One thing I've found with ENV diffs is that there are a couple of things to look out for if you pull one for any reason. The crown wheel bolts have a habit of loosening, I supect they might stretch. They should be replaced with grade 8 bolts if available or grade 5 if not. wash with solvent and apply Loctite 242 and torque up to specs using the locktabs. This seems to fix that problem. The other is failure of the pinion "nose" bearing. This is caused by lack of preload on the main pinion bearings. It's not as common as the bolt problem but does happen. If the diffs are setup properly in the first place they are very strong and will rarely give trouble. The use of the petrol V8 won't produce the horrifying fuel consumption as some of the comments indicated, the 2B with the 2.6 and all helical transfer case gave 11 MPG which hardly ever varied. The 4.4 returns 14-15 MPG and really ringing its neck in the bush 10 MPG. This is with .996:1 gearing in the LT95, so if your 4.6 is to be used with injection it should better that. The weight of a 2B is close to a Defender, Rangie or Disco anyway so the only difference should be from aerodynamics. Keep us informed on the progress.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Have been listening to all the posters and have decided to change my mind again. A friend has offered me a 4BD1 and also an LT85/LT230 combination so I think that I may go with that.

Even though I have the 4.6 EFI, R380/LT230, a ZF 4HP22, and some (repaired) 101 manifolds, I still think that in the long run the diesel will be a better option.

Gee I love the sound of a V8 :BigCry:

[wagoo]

Only just discovered this forum. The thread was about weak halfshaft universal joints and yokes. The cure of fitting stage 1 birfield joints is fine of itself, but in my experience an equally or more common point of failure on FCs is splitting the swivel balls just outboard of the bolt flange. This weakness was never addressed by Rover even on the Salisbury equipped SADF vehicles as late as 1976. The cause of this weakness is the unnecessarily large 3'' diameter roller bearing that supports the inner halfshaft. It doesn't need to be that large, and because it is it reduces the wall thickness of the swivel ball neck.If retaining universal joints, a bronze bushing provides more than adequate support for the halfshaft, so that a steel strengthening insert can be machined up, pressed into the bearing bore and welded in from both ends. The same if fitting Birfield CV's, except you don't need the bush because the joint is supported by the bushing in the stub axle.
I did this modification about 8 years ago when fitting portal hubs to my vehicle and haven't had any issues with the swivel balls despite the additional leverage imposed by the 4 3/4'' vertical and 2'' lateral offset and 36'' dia tyres.
Wagoo.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Interesting that you say that about the Sals SIIB using the standard SIIB swivel balls, because the Salisbury equipped SIII 1 Ton front axles had integral swivel balls on the axle housing the same as the 101 Land Rover and Toyota/Nissan.

BTW: I wish you had posted this earlier, as I only recently completed the CV conversion of the ENV housing you fitted to my vehicle when you removed the Salisbury. It would have been an easy modification to the Stage 1 swivels when they were off.

[wagoo]

Interesting that you say that about the Sals SIIB using the standard SIIB swivel balls, because the Salisbury equipped SIII 1 Ton front axles had integral swivel balls on the axle housing the same as the 101 Land Rover and Toyota/Nissan.

BTW: I wish you had posted this earlier, as I only recently completed the CV conversion of the ENV housing you fitted to my vehicle when you removed the Salisbury. It would have been an easy modification to the Stage 1 swivels when they were off.

John Ayre (ULR) told me many years ago that a narrower version of the 6 stud 101 front and rear Salisburies were available as an option on normal control series 3 s but I've never come across any.
Because I was custom building my axles for the portals and making inner halfshafts from scratch, I made my strengthening inserts with an integral 3/8'' thick bolt flange to further beef things up. If your inner shaft splines are long enough I'd recommend this method, although a mate of mine just made non flanged inserts for his very heavy chev deisel powered LWb on heavily offset rims and hasn't had any issues in over 7 years of hard use.
Wagoo.

Edit. I may be able to provide some details on the prototype 101s. Around 30 odd years ago I was visiting a firm called Lake engineering in Moorabin. He had John Ayres 101 prototype in the workshop to which he was changng the ENV front and rear axle assemblies over to a new set of salisburies that John had imported. The old Env front end had grenaded a Ujoint and yoke and bits of it were poking through holes punched through the chrome swivel ball.John Lake was also commissioned to build a bottom power take off unit to drive a winch because the rear pto was set up to drive the powered trailer. The interesting part was that the transfercase was a separate bolt on unit, not cast integral with the gearbox as with production LT95 transmissions although the internals were identical. I don't know about the main gearbox, but I would guess it would have been an ENV unit as these were occasionally used on some military protype normal control LandRovers.
Edit no2 Rather than start a new post I thought I'd just add to this one regarding a couple of points brought up earlier in this thread. The first point is the weight difference between ENV and Salisburies. Having man handled and fitted both types on too many occasions I'd say the Sals are definately heavier. Some years ago I designed difflocks for 101s which were air activated via an internal pneumatic cylinder that was concentric with the axle tubes .After fitting a couple of prototype difflocks to a friends vehicle I had several more cylinders machined up to the same dimesions.However when I attempted to fit another set to another friends slightly later model 101 we found that the axle tubes on the front axle were considerably thicker, necessitating the hasty manufacture of an electric drill powered boring bar to ream enough metal out of the tube to allow the cylinder to be fitted .
The other point is a minor one, re Morris Commercial diffs.
From WW2 and maybe even earlier, up to the the last of the LD series Morrys they employed a split housing construction type differential common to many vehicles since the inception of the automobile.
The Morry diffs were very strong and capable of withstanding lots of abuse, but they owe nothing to ENV design.
About 40 years ago I modified Eaton rear diff assemblies from AA110 2wd international pick up trucks and fitted them to my old Landy with Landy swivels etc. these Eatons were roughly similar in size to the ENV diffs fitted to FCs etc but interestingly they had 2 pinion carriers and the crown wheel an pinions were of the stronger hypoid design. This would indicate to me that the ENV was not an Eaton design but possibly one from a British company that they took over, possibly Kirkstall, who supplied planetary reduction axle assemblies for the small production run of 11.00x28 tractor tyred Forest Rovers.

wagoo.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

OK this is my take on a lot of the contents of your post.

John Ayre was correct about a series track version of a Salisbury front end. However this was for the early Series III 1 Ton vehicles, by the end of SIII 1Ton production they were using regular SIII Rover axles. (Probably the accountants again) The reason you may not have seen them was that the SIII 1 Ton model was not sold in Australia although some vehicles did get the 1 ton chassis.

John Ayre's 101 prototype now lives in Cairns still with it's powered trailer. There is a thread on it around here somewhere.

ARB recently did a batch of air-lockers for 101's - 101 Ron and Garrycol have them.

I remember reading in some magazine a long time ago that the LT95 box was designed by Ferguson/David Brown. It is likely that the 101 prototype still had one of the prototype LT95s before the single casting was developed.

Re ENV: You could be correct about the design basis, I was under the impression that the E is ENV related to Eaton in a joint venture with Nuffield to make diffs for something like or actually for Morris Commercial vehicles which one I'm unaware. It could be a furphy as no one has been able to produce any hard evidence about it.

Did you ever come across the 109 1 Ton prototype and trailer combination that was broken up in Melbourne? I remember meeting the guys who brought it in when they were in Sydney in 1974 however in 1978 or 1980 I saw the 1 Ton prototype vehicle in Alice Springs, but it was without it's trailer. When I asked the owners they suggested they bought the vehicle in Melbourne but it didn't have a trailer. The sad fact was that the trailer drive coupling was still attached to the rear cross member of the 109. :(

[wagoo]

I do recall we had a military colored scottorn? powered trailer in the yard a very long time ago, but it was sold very quickly before I had an opportunity to look over it in any detail.No tug vehicle however. We also had John Ayres proto which Don actually sold a second time,a long time after a bloke who put down a not inconsiderable deposit just disappeared . Last I saw it was looking a bit worse for wear. I think I must be the only enthusiast not to have owned that vehicle at one time. It certainly changed hands a lot.
Wagoo.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I do recall we had a military colored scottorn? powered trailer in the yard a very long time ago, but it was sold very quickly before I had an opportunity to look over it in any detail.No tug vehicle however. We also had John Ayres proto which Don actually sold a second time,a long time after a bloke who put down a not inconsiderable deposit just disappeared . Last I saw it was looking a bit worse for wear. I think I must be the only enthusiast not to have owned that vehicle at one time. It certainly changed hands a lot.
Wagoo.Scottorn-Bushmaster and yes that was the trailer. The vehicle and trailer came out of Land Rover Special Vehicles, where 1 of the blokes worked, so it is likely that it was also a prototype.

Would like to know the whereabouts of either the trailer or tug.

What I could never understand is why someone would separate the pair and leave the drive unit on the vehicle. The people in Alice Springs thought it was merely a PTO. (People with that little interest should never own a vehicle like that!)

[wagoo]

Scottorn-Bushmaster and yes that was the trailer. The vehicle and trailer came out of Land Rover Special Vehicles, where 1 of the blokes worked, so it is likely that it was also a prototype.

Would like to know the whereabouts of either the trailer or tug.

What I could never understand is why someone would separate the pair and leave the drive unit on the vehicle. The people in Alice Springs thought it was merely a PTO. (People with that little interest should never own a vehicle like that!)

Do you recall if the tug had the trailerdrive transfercase poking up through the floor at the rear of the tub, or was it the one with 2 transfer cases in the normal location siamesed together ? I never could work out how that one could give two synchronised rear output speeds in both low and high range. I agree with your sentiments about people with little interest ending up with rare and interesting vehicles, and it did annoy me when we removed the Salisbury front diff from your vehicle and failed to refit it after we discovered it wasn't suitable for the 2a camper.
Wagoo.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

From what I remember the trailer could only be powered in low range.

The coupling on the rear cross-member also replicated the low ratio in the main transfer box. In many ways it looked like the regular rear PTO assembly except for the trailer coupling.

If as you say the Salisbury would foul an Isuzu engine, it may be a good thing it has gone, although I could always have fitted it to my relatively standard SIIB.

[wagoo]

If as you say the Salisbury would foul an Isuzu engine, it may be a good thing it has gone, although I could always have fitted it to my relatively standard SIIB.

As I said, there was nothing special about the front Salisbury as it still had universally jointed halfshafts. Easy enough to make a front by retubing a rear, but having done just that in the past, I found it ate up ground clearance even when trimmed and wasn't beneficial unless larger 101 CV joints and swivels were also fitted, because the Stage One CV joints were the weakest link. I used to break them easily enough(with difflocks,very low gearing and 36'' tyres) on a 4 pinion 3.54:1 Rover type diffs.
Wagoo.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip> because the Stage One CV joints were the weakest link. I used to break them easily enough(with difflocks,very low gearing and 36'' tyres) on a 4 pinion 3.54:1 Rover type diffs.
Wagoo.No matter how strong you make a transmission line there is always going to be a weakest link. It is a pay off between weight and strength.

In the early SIIa f/c the weak link was the Rover diff and axles, when they went ENV the yokes on the uni-joints became the weak link.

In the work that you do with portal axles and I'm assuming rock crawling you are going to break things.

The ENV front halfshafts are only available second hand these days if you can find them at all. So my original reason behind the stage 1 CV was to keep as much standard as I could in the absence of the OEM ENV front halfshafts. I discussed the Stage 1 CVs with Mal Story and in his opinion they (and the county CVs, which are one way interchangeable with Stage 1) they are the last of the decent Rover CV's - his words.

I am not planning doing with my SIIb camper what you are doing with your vehicles and so they will probably suffice. Although I am collecting spare Stage 1 CV's and have spare Maxi-Drive halfshafts already.

[wagoo]

No matter how strong you make a transmission line there is always going to be a weakest link. It is a pay off between weight and strength.

In the early SIIa f/c the weak link was the Rover diff and axles, when they went ENV the yokes on the uni-joints became the weak link.

In the work that you do with portal axles and I'm assuming rock crawling you are going to break things.

The ENV front halfshafts are only available second hand these days if you can find them at all. So my original reason behind the stage 1 CV was to keep as much standard as I could in the absence of the OEM ENV front halfshafts. I discussed the Stage 1 CVs with Mal Story and in his opinion they (and the county CVs, which are one way interchangeable with Stage 1) they are the last of the decent Rover CV's - his words.

I am not planning doing with my SIIb camper what you are doing with your vehicles and so they will probably suffice. Although I am collecting spare Stage 1 CV's and have spare Maxi-Drive halfshafts already.

I understand the points you make and not criticising the stage1 CVs per say, but just trying to show that the Salisbury front end is unnecessary overkill for that size CV and 24/23 spline halfshafts.
I did modify a set of 101 swivel balls by welding bolt flanges to them.fitting those and the Cvs would have made a more balanced front end from a strength viewpoint, but I couldn't live with the ground clearance, hence the portal conversion.
Not really rock crawling.There are very few large rocks round my way.the vehicle sees general service in addition to work around my steep bush property.
wagoo.

[uninformed]

a few points....may or may not be fact!

ENV could be Eaton number 5

I believe the eaton to have a 3rd pinion support and to be more refined than the Sals...yes it is spiral bevel and the Sals Hypoid...

with the early development of the 101 was the original gearbox/T/c constant 4wd?

RR cvs are just as good as AEU2522 the stub shaft is the weak link and easy to change....you can also get Barry at HTE to make some Hytuf stubs to build a strong(ish) cv...

cheers,
Serg

[wagoo]

a few points....may or may not be fact!

ENV could be Eaton number 5

I believe the eaton to have a 3rd pinion support and to be more refined than the Sals...yes it is spiral bevel and the Sals Hypoid...

with the early development of the 101 was the original gearbox/T/c constant 4wd?

RR cvs are just as good as AEU2522 the stub shaft is the weak link and easy to change....you can also get Barry at HTE to make some Hytuf stubs to build a strong(ish) cv...

cheers,
Serg

I think Eaton No 5 would be comparatively huge. Mal Story called the ENVs under his Sidewinder Eaton No 1 s
The ENVs 3rd support needle bearing is very necessary because the main taper roller bearings are too close together. Even so the support bearing was prone to failure leading to poor cwp meshing and subsequent tooth damage
the ENV pinion is substantially smaller in diameter than the 4.7:1 Salisbury.
The advantages of the ENV is better ground clearance, probably stronger axle housing, and cooler running for heavy work in hot climates due to less sliding friction of the gears compared to the Sals hypoid gears.
Not sure about early development 101's. the Falcon engined pre production prototype with powered trailer had basically a bolt on LT95 type transfercase, but had normal series swivel housings and universally jointed halfshafts, so may have been selective 4wd. Some say the even earlier versions had series all helical 1 ton transfercases.

I believe KAM in the UK build RRCv's with 24 spline plug in stub shafts,all made from aircraft quality superdoopernium.
Wagoo.
Wagoo.

[isuzurover]

I believe KAM in the UK build RRCv's with 24 spline plug in stub shafts,all made from aircraft quality superdoopernium.


KAM claim that but they won't tell you what they use (unlike every other manufacturer). Almost any metal has an Aerospace number and can be called an "aerospace alloy" or whatever BS term they use.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>
Not sure about early development 101's. the Falcon engined pre production prototype with powered trailer had basically a bolt on LT95 type transfercase, but had normal series swivel housings and universally jointed halfshafts, so may have been selective 4wd. Some say the even earlier versions had series all helical 1 ton transfercases.<snip>Given the time of the first 101 prototypes I would go so far as to suggest that the entire running gear was from the SIIB production line. I also have a reinforced ENV front housing which is all other respects is an SIIB except the assembly serial number commences in a "6" not the "3" like all the other civilian forward controls. I contemplated whether the housing was from a prototype (101/7) currently in Cairns.

Also have to agree with Wagoo an Eaton No.5 is a dual speed used on 8 to 10 tonne trucks.